AUSTRALIANS AT WAR

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Friday, October 14, 2005

There was a point, after much private discussion with Hamish Alcorn at Webdiary, that I was willing to publish, for what ever my little ol’ blog is worth, some kind of ‘retraction’ of my earlier notes titled ‘Margo Kingston’s Webdiary Caves in to the Right-Wing’. I’m wondering now if I was not right in the first place and that Margo Kingston has indeed caved in to the right-wing – it certainly seems so as of today!

During the other day (12 October 2005) and yesterday there had been much debate on Margo Kingston’s Webdiary about the discussion of ‘conspiracy theories’. The right-wing has made a concerted effort to discourage such discussion and, at this stage, it looks as though Margo and her team have caved in yet again.

Some arrogant editor on Webdiary named ‘David’ has been adjudicating the stream of posts on the subject and has deigned himself qualified somehow to see himself fit to decide what is published and what is not in matters relating to so-called ‘conspiracy theories’. He enlightens us of his intentions with remarks such as this: “We take our own decisions on what to publish and what not…”, reminiscent somewhat of a certain Prime Minister’s equally arrogant remarks regarding who and who does not come to Australia!

The bottom line is; freedom of speech has yet again been curtailed by the right-wing on Margo Kingston’s Webdiary, a project that started off with so much promise, but has succumbed to forces that even it doesn’t understand. And why doesn’t it understand? FEAR! Fear of losing the right-wing from Webdiary and the fear of some mysterious ‘very powerful people’ that Margo for some reason has also given in to. One has to wonder who these ‘very powerful people’ are.

So much for freedom of speech. Again, what a shame! Another good idea down the tube. The right-wing wins again and Margo and team show their true colours!

Thursday, October 13, 2005

Part of the paranoia that is associated with so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ is the refusal to believe that any government, particularly a supposedly ‘democratic’ one, could actually do the things that are claimed. To even contemplate it means taking a step outside of their safety zone. They feel, as Jay White said, uncomfortable. The mind of most people can only be opened up just so much but beyond that it shuts down with a refusal to see any thing that might disturb their image of perceived reality.

An example. The idea that the US government could have had anything to do with 9/11 is absolutely mind boggling for most people. If it were found to be true a lot of people’s entire concepts about the very nature of man’s existence would be thrown into disarray. The whole structure upon which entire government systems are founded would be called into question. Can you imagine how the American people or, indeed, the entire world, would react if it were found that 9/11 was planned and carried out by elements of the government? Just close your eyes and imagine.

Unthinkable!

Yet there was a time when elements of an American government planned just that sort event in order to start a war.

No doubt many Webdiarists are familiar with Operation Northwoods of the JFK era. For those of you not familiar with it go here .To view the original government documents relating to the plan go here.

This is the first hurdle that one must get over if one is to even begin opening one’s mind – the fact that at least the government is capable of thinking about such atrocities.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

By ignoring or pooh-poohing what the right-wing consider to be conspiracy theories (and let’s not forget that during the cold War the right-wing were full of conspiracy theories themselves, particularly during the McCarthy witch-hunts ere and reds-under-the-bed scare tactics in post-war US) we run the risking of ignoring questions that need to be asked. These aren’t questions of theory; they are question that arise from proven actual events which put into doubt the line that has been told about other events.

For example: On 4 December 2001 President was asked: “…another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?”

The President replied: “Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."And, Jordan, I wasn't sure what to think at first. You know, I grew up in a period of time where the idea of America being under attack never entered my mind -- just like your Daddy's and Mother's mind probably. And I started thinking hard in that very brief period of time about what it meant to be under attack. I knew that when I got all of the facts that we were under attack, there would be hell to pay for attacking America.”

Now, this is just a piffling thing on the surface, but the question I have to ask is: how come the President got to see the first aircraft flying into the WTC before the second aircraft flew into the second tower? No one else did unless they happened to actually be there. Video of the first aircraft flying into the tower didn’t emerge until after the second aircraft had gone in.

It’s not rocket science; it’s just a question about something that doesn’t add up. No theory is being propagated at all. In this example I’m merely asking why the President lied. The right-wing paranoids (paranoid about ‘conspiracy theories’ upsetting their own right-wing theories and agenda) can test this question. Who knows, they may come up with an answer that suits their needs.

Sunday, October 09, 2005

The US government is, it seems, waking up to the idea that most people on the planet believe that Osama bin Laden is more than likely dead. Of course, they can’t quite just come out and say that because for a very long time now they have been telling the world that he is alive and continues to be a threat to the US and the world.

So now we are told and asked to believe that a letter – not, one should note, from bin Laden himself – but from Osama bin Laden’s number two man, has turned up on Bush’s desk. The letter, we are further asked to believe, was meant for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, the one-legged Scarlet Pimpernel of the Middle East whose existence is the subject of the other myth that the US needs to perpetuate in order to keep the concept of a ‘Global War on Terror’ in motion. (But that’s another debate.)

We are told that the letter contains an outline of a strategy designed to force the US and its allies from Iraq and then to spread Islamic theocracy to neighbouring states and throughout the Middle East. All this very conveniently ties in with Bush’s claim in his speech of 6 October 2005 which, oddly enough, is the same date as the revelation to the world that the ‘letter’ exists. While the letter apparently only mentioned the ME being in line for Islamic theocracy, Bush embellished the claims by saying that they want “…to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia.”

That’s from Spain to Indonesia, we are asked to believe!

Though I can find no date as to when this ‘letter’ was supposed to have come into US hands one might assume that its 13-odd pages must have taken some considerable time to prepare regardless of who actually wrote it. One can assume however that it would have been written before the 1 October 2005 blasts in Bali. (Courier services from the Tora Bora caves to the battle fronts of Iraq are notoriously slow these days.) But this wouldn’t bother Bush in his rush to propagandise any given situation. The latest bombings in Bali are proof enough for Bush that al Qaeda want to have an empire that will include Spain, stretch all the way across North Africa from Morocco to Egypt, across the entire Middle East and throughout Arabia, through Iran and Afghanistan, across the entire sub continent and all the way down through Asia to Indonesia. (Phew!)

The president, just to demonstrate how far he has really lost the plot, then goes overboard with the propaganda with this garbage which he expects the world to fall for: “With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation.” Bush somehow misses the fact that if this ‘radical Islamic empire from Spain to Indonesia’ somehow comes about, they don’t have to develop WMDs – Pakistan and India already have them. And in the creation of this empire Israel would have long disappeared.

Such are the ramblings of a US President who tells the world that God wants him to stand up against the creation of this empire. This is the President of the world’s most powerful nation – one that Howard supports.

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

This in yesterday’s SMH was of interest. It begins thus: “The FBI's counterterrorism unit has launched a broad investigation of US-based theft rings after discovering some vehicles used in deadly car bombings in Iraq, including attacks that killed US troops and Iraqi civilians, were probably stolen in the United States, according to senior US Government officials.”

Why, or even how, would ‘terrorists’ in Iraq import cars from the US to use in ‘suicide’ bombings?

The article goes on: “The FBI's deputy assistant director for counterterrorism, Inspector John Lewis, said the investigation did not prove the vehicles were stolen specifically for car bombings in the Middle East, but there was evidence they were smuggled out of the US by organised criminal networks that included terrorists and insurgents.”

Are we really expected to believe this stuff?

Does the person that dreampt this up realise how rediculous it is to imagine that stolen cars can be taken to a port in the US, loaded onto a ship, taken halfway around the world, then unloaded at a port in the ME and then driven or freighted into Iraq were they can be used in ‘suicide’ attacks?

Why aren’t questions being asked about the true nature of ‘suicide’ bombs in Iraq? No one seems to want to talk about what is going on. Why? Are we too frightented to ask about what is becoming increasingly obvious? What are we frightened of?

Search This Blog

Followers

About Me

is an Aeronautical Engineer, Historian and general carer of what goes on in the world.
Apart from an earlier career in engineering, Lataan also has a First Class Honours BA degree in History and a PhD in International Politics.
All material on this site is available for use without permission but it would be appreciated if the source is acknowledged.